Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Frank Newgent]

What is your method of filtering out bias when predicting one's individual behavior in a social environment?

I may be misunderstanding you as your question doesn't seem to make much sense to me but I'll try and answer what I think you mean.

If we are trying to model human behaviour then that model has to incorporate bias since that is part of human behaviour so we wouldn't be looking to filter out bias behaviour in that model.

When you, Darat, are predicting someone's behavior in a social environment - such as in your example of predicting which person will default on a loan - what is your method of filtering out your/Darat's bias?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

When you, Darat, are predicting someone's behavior in a social environment - such as in your example of predicting which person will default on a loan - what is your method of filtering out your/Darat's bias?

You're completely misunderstanding his point. Any simulation or model of Darat would include his biases and any techniques he may or may not have for compensating for them.

 

[Frank Newgent]

You're completely misunderstanding his point. Any simulation or model of Darat would include his biases and any techniques he may or may not have for compensating for them.

What are the techniques?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What are the techniques?

It doesn't freaking matter to the point FFS. Any techniques.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Ineffective ones, too?

 

[Tassman]

You are matching ideologies with effective moral norms. Functionality of a norm has to be measured by effective rules of behaviour. “Thou shalt not kill” are beautiful words that only can be interpreted in the particular context of an aggressive text as the Bible is where slaughtering the enemies is strongly commanded. The UDHR is a modern formulation of the Ten Commandments. Beautiful but vague and in some respects contradictory. You can kill whole populations in the name of the Ten Commandments and you can kill whole populations in the name of the UDHR… or democracy.

If you limit yourself to vague statements as “what I’m saying is that morals and ethics are grounded in our evolved nature as a social species” it is difficult to disagree, although the idea is a bit speculative.

Not speculative! There is no question that we are a social species, as are most primates. For any social species, the benefits of being part of a cooperative group vastly outweigh the benefits of individualism. And, the rules we devise for the maintenance of social cohesion are what we call morality. They vary from era to era but the reasons for them remain the same...they derive from our nature as social animals.

“Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection” is a more problematic statement. I don’t think that you are able to assess if a particular norm (“in every case”) is better or worse to the evolution of human species, except for some obvious examples of ecological norms. And this is so because human evolution is not only natural but social. I repeat you: moral norms are the outcome of the struggle for power between social groups that defend particular interests. It is impossible to say if the norms that subject women in Muslim societies are better or worse than those of relatively equalitarian societies. If we see what it happens in other natural societies I am afraid that patriarchal societies are more "adaptive". If we have to struggle against male chauvinism —I think so— we should look for our principles in other place than natural evolution of species.

There is no “better or worse”, merely what the individual members of societies accept as the norm. The norm operates on a feedback loop between individuals and community acceptance...which is why social values change over time e.g. such as the growing acceptance of LGBT’s. Sadly religion complicates things by making the unverifiable claim that the laws of god(s) are absolute, but the ultimate goal is the same in all societies, social cohesion. It's a survival thing.

Violence, herd instinct, selfishness, etc. also are evolutionary products. Nature provides us with both cooperative and aggressive impulses. Nature is morally neutral. Natural empathic impulses can be a base to implement moral decisions. But moral decisions are different to natural impulses.

Even if we have natural impulses toward some moral actions (empathic) this doesn’t mean that we ought to obey these impulses at any circumstance. Any system of moral imposes (unnatural) restrictions to our sexual impulses. Some people think that we have to resist sexual impulses always. This is a moral question that we cannot resolve with any scientific argument.

One doesn’t resolve ANY moral question with science, that’s not the argument.

The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that as evolved social beings we need to modify individual selfishness in order to live in harmony among the other human beings that comprise our communities.

 

[Tassman]

Tommy is correct.
We have evolved as a social species and that is precisely why people will differ in their morals.

Evolution works at the level of the individual, or even at gene level, not species level. Within a social species there can be multiple, mutually exclusive strategies for individuals to follow within the same social group.

Very much simplified example to illustrate the point:
Imagine a species that lives in groups. Individuals need to groom themselves to keep their parasite burden low enough to stay healthy enough to escape predators and reproduce effectively.
It's very difficult to reach all parts of your own body and you will never be totally parasite free.
If a "cooperation gene" evolves it will rapidly spread through the population. If I groom your back and you groom mine, we will both be better off than individuals just grooming themselves. Great and beneficial for everyone.

Except for the fact that the "cooperation gene" will never be able to spread through the whole population. As soon as most individuals have the gene, cheaters who get groomed by cooperative individuals, but don't bother grooming their benefactors, will be better off and fitter than cooperators, since they could spend the extra time they save pursuing food and mates.

So the "cheater gene" becomes fitter and starts spreading through the population. As soon as the "cheater gene" becomes too prevalent everyone starts suffering from parasites again and the "cooperation gene" again becomes the fitter option and starts spreading.

An optimal balance will ultimately be reached, with say, thumb suck, 80% cooperators and 20% cheaters in the population. Especially if the species under discussion have good memories and cheaters will only be groomed by a cooperator once or twice before the cooperator realizes the bastard is cheating and the cheater has to, next time, find another cooperator to groom him.

This social species will thus contain individuals with opposing morals, cheaters and cooperators.

Each of the two strategies is driven by evolution as optimal at the same time, within the group.

Yes, moralizing is an individual activity. What a community finds to be moral or immoral is an expression of what the majority of its members find to be moral or immoral. Individual members of that community can and do disagree with some of the community’s moral values. But there IS a feedback loop.

Since what we perceive as moral is rooted in identifying actions that protect what we value - the question becomes: how do we come to value what we value. What we come to value initially is influenced by family and community. In childhood the bulk of what we value is strongly influenced by these sources.

As we mature we start to examine those influences and these values as we engage with other adults, or gain exposure to new community groups, e.g. at school or university. As those underlying values adapt and change so to do our individual moral values change accordingly.

This dynamic is continuous. In the West, the comparatively recent shift towards acceptance and rights for the LGBT community is an example. But there have been others throughout history, e.g. the changing role for women over the past century.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
One doesn’t resolve ANY moral question with science, that’s not the argument.
...

In the context of the thread all the way from the OP and the forum in general - it is the point of contention.

"Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore ...."

So here is one of the argument made on this forum: Reality is physical and science can explain everything.
Since you claim there is something science can't do, it means that you are religious. You are an apologist, you are delusional since you are religious and you don't understand how reality works.
Further if you won't admit that you are religious, you are lying.
Tassman, you are not allowed to question if there is a limit to the scientific methodology, because then you are attacking science and it means that you are religious, believe in dualism/idealism and what not.

So welcome to the land of the few - we are not accepted on the side of Science and we are not accepted on the side of Religion.
To do morality you have to use natural science, psychology/social science and philosophy in combination - yes or no??? Tassman, this is where this started!!!

 

[David Mo]

(...)For any social species, the benefits of being part of a cooperative group vastly outweigh the benefits of individualism. (...)

There is no “better or worse”, merely what the individual members of societies accept as the norm. The norm operates on a feedback loop between individuals and community acceptance...which is why social values change over time e.g. such as the growing acceptance of LGBT’s. Sadly religion complicates things by making the unverifiable claim that the laws of god(s) are absolute, but the ultimate goal is the same in all societies, social cohesion. It's a survival thing. (...)

Yes, moralizing is an individual activity. What a community finds to be moral or immoral is an expression of what the majority of its members find to be moral or immoral. Individual members of that community can and do disagree with some of the community’s moral values. But there IS a feedback loop.

Since what we perceive as moral is rooted in identifying actions that protect what we value - the question becomes: how do we come to value what we value. What we come to value initially is influenced by family and community. In childhood the bulk of what we value is strongly influenced by these sources.

Your extreme communitarism — see highlights— is scary. You reduce values of human societies to the law of the herd. Or rather, the idealized concept that you have of “cohesion”. Cohesion in animal societies has nothing to do with democratic values. It is ensured by means of violence, hierarchy, domination and exclusion –see killing in almost all cases. In terms of evolution a brutal “totalitarian” system is fitter than a democratic one. And this is not a mere speculation, but the evidence of the first millenniums of human history.

In order to reach “cohesion”, religion is a fitter instrument that morality. That is what shows the history of human societies again. Human societies reach their strongest levels of cohesion under imperative religious beliefs. The autonomy of morality is only a recent human belief and clearly minority in relation of religious beliefs. Your strong communitarism doesn’t attack religions, but endows them with a strong argument against atheism as a divisive ideology.

In reality, strong communitarism is an argument against any kind of dissidence. In the Southern states of the USA defendants of civil rights were —are?— considered as communists and enemies of civilization by the majority of society. If you accept majority as the only value you should justify the violence against black people and his “communist friends”. I am sure that you don’t do so, but this is a —nice— contradiction with your communitarism. And you cannot say that this majority is not the majority of the whole Nation because this implies a concept of community —“nation”— that is absolutely anti-evolutionary because it has nothing to do with Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest. Boundaries are conventional artefacts, not natural.

Your concept of morality is sheer social Darwinism, a ancient theory that ha have been in the basis of many totalitarian ideologies. The only antidote is a measured balance between social cohesion and moral autonomy that needs justify the latter in other bases that pure biological similarities.

 

[David Mo]

Except for the fact that the "cooperation gene" will never be able to spread through the whole population. As soon as most individuals have the gene, cheaters who get groomed by cooperative individuals, but don't bother grooming their benefactors, will be better off and fitter than cooperators, since they could spend the extra time they save pursuing food and mates.

So the "cheater gene" becomes fitter and starts spreading through the population. As soon as the "cheater gene" becomes too prevalent everyone starts suffering from parasites again and the "cooperation gene" again becomes the fitter option and starts spreading.

An optimal balance will ultimately be reached, with say, thumb suck, 80% cooperators and 20% cheaters in the population. Especially if the species under discussion have good memories and cheaters will only be groomed by a cooperator once or twice before the cooperator realizes the bastard is cheating and the cheater has to, next time, find another cooperator to groom him.
.

How do you identify a cheater in a human group? How do you establish the ideal cheater index? The social status of the cheater is irrelevant? 20% of capitalist cheaters is the same than 20% of cheater housewifes?

Social cohesion is not a genetic problem. It is a social and political problem. Human societies are human societies not chimpanzees tribes.

 

[Tassman]

In the context of the thread all the way from the OP and the forum in general - it is the point of contention.

"Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore ...."

What I said was that one doesn’t resolve moral question with science NOT that science can’t explain consciousness. They’re two different arguments.

Moral questions are resolved by the interaction of community and individuals. And given that science demonstrates that we are a social species this interaction is for the purpose of maintaining social cohesion.

 

[Cheetah]

How do you identify a cheater in a human group? How do you establish the ideal cheater index? The social status of the cheater is irrelevant? 20% of capitalist cheaters is the same than 20% of cheater housewifes?

Social cohesion is not a genetic problem. It is a social and political problem. Human societies are human societies not chimpanzees tribes.

I don't know.
I don't know. What is a cheater index?
I don't know.
Yes.
My post was about a fictitious species that does not exist.

 

[Darat]

When you, Darat, are predicting someone's behavior in a social environment - such as in your example of predicting which person will default on a loan - what is your method of filtering out your/Darat's bias?

If the model being used is accurate i.e. can be used to make accurate predictions then it can't have any bias in that sense, if it did it wouldn't be producing accurate predictions.

 

[Darat]

Ineffective ones, too?

I'm really confused now, if you wanted to model me your model has to model "all of me*" else it isn't a model of me and won't give you the responses I would give you.



*Or rather accurately enough

 

[Darat]

In the context of the thread all the way from the OP and the forum in general - it is the point of contention.

"Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore ...."

So here is one of the argument made on this forum: Reality is physical and science can explain everything.
Since you claim there is something science can't do, it means that you are religious. You are an apologist, you are delusional since you are religious and you don't understand how reality works. ...snip...

I've not see anyone making that claim. Perhaps you have misunderstood what people have been saying?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What I said was that one doesn’t resolve moral question with science NOT that science can’t explain consciousness. They’re two different arguments.

Moral questions are resolved by the interaction of community and individuals. And given that science demonstrates that we are a social species this interaction is for the purpose of maintaining social cohesion.

We are a social species. where evolution takes places among individuals as competition about resources and sexual reproduction. You treat social cohesion as an objective absolute, it is not. We are not ants, where all in the group is related through the queen. Your idea of social cohesion is a nice idea, but it is the wrong species. We are neither ants nor the Borg.

Consciousness is related to first person experience, which is related to subjectivity, which is repleted to morality. Your argument was that all about consciousness could be solved by science. It can't because you can't use science to establish your morality of a social misfit. The meaning of a social misfit is tied to first person experience, which is related to subjectivity, which is related to morality and all that takes place in your consciousness. You can't see a social misfit, you judge subjectively someone to "be" a social misfit.
There is no international scientific measurement standard/unit to measure "social misfit". It is a social, cultural, political and power/force/law claim. It is not science.

I have said so before. You conflate we as a species and we in a social sense. These 2 cases of "we" are not the same. The first gives rise to the second, but the second can't be reduced to the first.
You believe in some weird objective, absolute and universal we in a social sense, which is not there. You and I are not a "we" just because you say so. Words are not magical and there is no "we", just because you say so. You don't understand that this "we" of yours is a cognitive construct in your brain and noting more. It only works in you believe in it and thus is no different that a belief in God in the sense of belief.

 

[Tassman]

Your extreme communitarism — see highlights— is scary. You reduce values of human societies to the law of the herd. Or rather, the idealized concept that you have of “cohesion”. Cohesion in animal societies has nothing to do with democratic values. It is ensured by means of violence, hierarchy, domination and exclusion –see killing in almost all cases. In terms of evolution a brutal “totalitarian” system is fitter than a democratic one.

Not at all, the values of human societies are determined by the interaction between individual inputs and cultural traditions...each influences the other.

And this is not a mere speculation, but the evidence of the first millenniums of human history.

The first millenniums of human history were tribal, which means “us” verses “them” was the norm. Yes inter-tribal warfare was brutal (see Moses and the slaughter of the Midianites) but the multicultural societies of today with their recognition of the concepts of “universal rights” and “crimes against humanity” are demonstrably less so..

In order to reach “cohesion”, religion is a fitter instrument that morality. That is what shows the history of human societies again. Human societies reach their strongest levels of cohesion under imperative religious beliefs. The autonomy of morality is only a recent human belief and clearly minority in relation of religious beliefs. Your strong communitarism doesn’t attack religions, but endows them with a strong argument against atheism as a divisive ideology.

Absolutely not! Religion and its demand for conformity is the most divisive of ALL social systems. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

In reality, strong communitarism is an argument against any kind of dissidence. In the Southern states of the USA defendants of civil rights were —are?— considered as communists and enemies of civilization by the majority of society. If you accept majority as the only value you should justify the violence against black people and his “communist friends”. I am sure that you don’t do so, but this is a —nice— contradiction with your communitarism. And you cannot say that this majority is not the majority of the whole Nation because this implies a concept of community —“nation”— that is absolutely anti-evolutionary because it has nothing to do with Darwinian idea of survival of the fittest. Boundaries are conventional artefacts, not natural.

I do NOT accept “majority as the only value”, I went on to say that individual members of that “majority” can and do disagree with many of the cultural traditions and practices of said 'majority'...but that there is a feedback loop. Individuals interact with the community and vice versa each impacting upon the other.

Your concept of morality is sheer social Darwinism, a ancient theory that ha have been in the basis of many totalitarian ideologies. The only antidote is a measured balance between social cohesion and moral autonomy that needs justify the latter in other bases that pure biological similarities.

No, my concept of morality is NOT sheer social Darwinism, quite the reverse.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

Absolutely not! Religion and its demand for conformity is the most divisive of ALL social systems. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions and sects hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

...

No, my concept of morality is NOT sheer social Darwinism, quite the reverse.

Evidence for that ALL. Otherwise it might be that you are biased against religion and your absolutism is that religion is BAD and not just that but the BADDEST of all BAD.

So what do you what to replace religion with? Communism, laissez faire capitalism, Objectivism and so on. BTW Objectivism is an example of a non-religious claim to an objective absolute morality.
Second BTW The evidence need to be based on science, otherwise you are not living up to your own demand for evidence; i.e. it must be based on science.

 

[Frank Newgent]

What is your method of filtering out bias when predicting one's individual behavior in a social environment?

I may be misunderstanding you as your question doesn't seem to make much sense to me but I'll try and answer what I think you mean.

If we are trying to model human behaviour then that model has to incorporate bias since that is part of human behaviour so we wouldn't be looking to filter out bias behaviour in that model.

When you, Darat, are predicting someone's behavior in a social environment - such as in your example of predicting which person will default on a loan - what is your method of filtering out your/Darat's bias?

If the model being used is accurate i.e. can be used to make accurate predictions then it can't have any bias in that sense, if it did it wouldn't be producing accurate predictions.

You claimed to be able to predict "which people will default on a loan".

I asked how. Now you're infallible. Are you a bot, Darat?

 

[Frank Newgent]

I'm really confused now, if you wanted to model me your model has to model "all of me*" else it isn't a model of me and won't give you the responses I would give you.



*Or rather accurately enough

Have no interest in modeling you, I was merely asking you questions.